>>54570899
What could you build in your garage with cheap tools that research centers with hundreds of millions of dollars in budget and top minds from various age groups and study backgrounds couldn't?

A cheap poo in the loo reminder?

you understand that just filing a patent costs thousands of dollars and requires a novel contribution to the world with no prior art, right?

this is to say nothing of enforcing it.

basically you're a fucking retard. this belongs in the sqt

>>54570914
>you need millions of dollars for creativity

>>54570923
I'm very creative and it's easy for me to see new ideas of random stuff.

>>54570950
>>you need millions of dollars for creativity
no, he's saying that you won't be able to instantiate creative ideas faster than a lab staffed with smarter people and funded to the tune of millions of dollars. just consider how much of a disadvantage you're at if you don't own a simple printer to allow you to print out documents and mail them from your home; now imagine how much of a disadvantage you're at given that labs have not just printers, but fabrication machines, scientific instruments, and myriad other equipment that allows them to explore, test, and develop their ideas.

>I'm very creative
For 10,000 people that think they're creative, maybe 1 actually is. The rest just find their own ideas novel, not realizing either
A) that they read or heard about the idea elsewhere, and failed to attribute it properly (e.g. their brain didn't make that connection), or
B) that the idea has already been explored (again, by people with more resources than you, so much more efficiently and quickly).

You're not understanding just how disadvantaged you are as an individual. It would be a long-shot for you to hope to invent one single thing on your own that people would bother to license. Making a career of it is even more reckless than trying to do a startup.

>>54570950
>I'm very creative

Your chosen thread image says otherwise, retard.

>>54570950
the requirements of a patent are such that a layperson cannot, legally speaking, defensibly produce one.

specifically, it needs to be non-obvious. in the US, the definition for that means "a person having ordinary skill in the art" would not know how to solve the problem.

what that generally means is that the only way an intelligent person could come up with novel, non-obvious contributions meritorious of a patent is if they spend enough time studying the existing work in their field *and* finding inspiration to solve problems that are generally hard to solve.

i'm not saying that you need a PhD to file any patent, but i think it's reasonable to argue that you need a PhD to make a career of regularly making patentable contributions to some field. certainly anything less than a masters and you would basically be in the camp of "ordinarily skilled" people where the solutions you come up with would generally not be patentable.

this is to say nothing of the fact that patents are notoriously slow to file, operating on a geological time scale, clearly geared towards entities that don't live human lives (in other words, corporations). and this is putting aside the financial costs